Osprey down

[saaby93]

An Osprey down
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-40837862
Doesnt say quite what happened

[ecsrobin]

Not good news.

I’m still amazed the US operate the osprey given its safety record and having chatted to osprey engineers they didn’t have confidence in the airframe.

[saaby93]

ecsrobin said:

Not good news.

I’m still amazed the US operate the osprey given its safety record and having chatted to osprey engineers they didn’t have confidence in the airframe.

What is its safety record like?
I guess there's minor issue converting hovering into enough forward motion to fly, but anything else?

[ecsrobin]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_inci...

[Eric Mc]

It is a remarkably complex machine and it took them almost 20 years to get it to a level where it could be used operationally.

[ecsrobin]

Eric Mc said:

It is a remarkably complex machine and it took them almost 20 years to get it to a level where it could be used operationally.

Like the typhoon, that was in development from 1983

[gruffalo]

Seen them flying around over central London on occasions, they don't look quite right in the air if you know what I mean. A bit like a bumble be, you know it can fly but doesn't look like it should.

[bakerstreet]

if memory serves several people died in test flights. Some of the failed test flights made it to YouTube very early on and that didn't help its cause.

I personally think they look like amazing machines. Sound is unique too. Bit less boomy than a chinoook ??

Edit: just read the article. There will be video footage of that which will eventually make it on to YouTube in many years 😢

Fingers crossed they at least find the last three people.

Edited by bakerstreet on Sunday 6th August 08:34

[stevesingo]

I'm no aviator, but the issue I see is with the V22 as opposed to a rotary wing or fixed wing aircraft, if you have a power failure you are screwed.

Rotary wing can auto rotate and have a controlled descent and fixed wing can glide. V22 looks like it would struggle to do either. Yes I know that the props/rotors are interconnected, so one engine failure will still result in the props/rotors being powered by one engine. The question is, would there be sufficient power to vertical land on a flight deck?

[King Herald]

Eric Mc said:

It is a remarkably complex machine and it took them almost 20 years to get it to a level where it could be used operationally.

Friend of mine used to be in the military in the USA, had something to do with Ospreys and maintenance therof. He reckons the 'hinge' on the wings is an incredibly complicated mass of hydraulics, wiring and mechanical paraphernalia, fraught with problems.

We used to see them fly over our house when we lived near Clark Air Force base in the Philippines, they would fly over totally blacked out, but the prop tips would leave huge blue circles, so we knew what they were.

[saaby93]

Unlike a helicopter they dont have a stabiliser tail rotor so have to fly like a chinook but sideways

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8lh8MJ39sg

[King Herald]

saaby93 said:

Unlike a helicopter they dont have a stabiliser tail rotor so have to fly like a chinook but sideways

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8lh8MJ39sg

They do seem to be such a cack handed redneck way of solving a problem that the Harrier had already covered.

I'm sure there are other reasons they were developed, but I can't actually think of any. Bigger capacity?

[saaby93]

Can they fly longer distances and speed than a chinook?

This video I think shows it start one engine and drive both props from it, then start the other engine - is that right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNEIgklBTSg

[dr_gn]

King Herald said:

saaby93 said:

Unlike a helicopter they dont have a stabiliser tail rotor so have to fly like a chinook but sideways

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8lh8MJ39sg

They do seem to be such a cack handed redneck way of solving a problem that the Harrier had already covered.

I'm sure there are other reasons they were developed, but I can't actually think of any. Bigger capacity?

I think in many ways, the contra-rotating main rotor concept is actually far more elegant than a tail rotor. From an engineering point of view there are all sorts of asymmetry issues to be solved with tail rotors.

The experimental Dornier Do-31 was a transport concept that used two Harrier engines - one per wing pod, so it would have been considered and rejected as a concept for what became the V-22. I guess if you lost one vectored thrust turbofan engine it really was game over, but with the V-22 both rotors are still powered, and autorotation is an option if both fail (albeit a desperate one).

The Do-31 is an amazing bit of engineering if you ever get to see one close up. There's one in a German museum, the name of which I can't remember.

ETA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_31



This is the museum, which is excellent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Museum_Flu...

Edited by dr_gn on Sunday 6th August 21:06

[King Herald]

I vaguely remember hearing the two motors are connected by a shaft, or hydraulics, so it can fly one one engine. Power can be transferred across the plane.

[djc206]

King Herald said:

They do seem to be such a cack handed redneck way of solving a problem that the Harrier had already covered.

I'm sure there are other reasons they were developed, but I can't actually think of any. Bigger capacity?

They are much quicker than a chinook

[AlexiusG55]

saaby93 said:

Unlike a helicopter they dont have a stabiliser tail rotor so have to fly like a chinook but sideways

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8lh8MJ39sg

The very first helicopter had two rotors side by side and no tail rotor:

[cuprabob]

"DEKRA" was the sponsor on Michael Schumacher's cap and that German helicopter registration is D-EKRA, Coincidence or is there a connection other than Germany?

[saaby93]

cuprabob said:

"DEKRA" was the sponsor on Michael Schumacher's cap and that German helicopter registration is D-EKRA, Coincidence or is there a connection other than Germany?

google reveals
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekra
1925

[Evanivitch]

djc206 said:

King Herald said:

They do seem to be such a cack handed redneck way of solving a problem that the Harrier had already covered.

I'm sure there are other reasons they were developed, but I can't actually think of any. Bigger capacity?

They are much quicker than a chinook

Wiki Max Speeds-

Apache 182mph
Chinook 196mph
Lynx 201mph
Osprey 351mph (@15000ft)

I'd say the speed benefit is significant...